A Baltimore judge ruled this morning that Maryland's law banning same-sex marriage "cannot withstand constitutional challenge," throwing open the possibility of a ferocious legislative battle over a constitutional amendment on the issue.

Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock, acknowledging her ruling's impact, immediately stayed the decision, and the state attorney general's office has filed notice of its intent to appeal. But the decision comes just as the Maryland General Assembly has convened for its 90-day session, and promises to refocus the legislature's attention squarely on the issue.

"The evidence is now on the table. We must pass a constitutional amendment," said Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel). "This issue is not for the courts to decide."

Maryland has had a law in effect since 1973 defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nineteen gay men and women filed suit last year, arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

My response to senor asshat™ (my Delegate):

Mr. Dwyer,

You, sir are exactly the reason that hundreds of thousands of Republicans are fleeing the party (I did a year ago). Unfortunately, you and most of the party have long lost sight of about what the Republican Party was formed for--and at its core--is about: individual freedom with a limited and non-intrusive government.

Your quote in Friday's Washington Post is what struck me to write this letter to you:

"The evidence is now on the table. We must pass a constitutional amendment."

I, for one, as have many Marylanders, have had it with state lawmakers passing laws that are very obviously a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause as well as meddling in the affairs of "the sanctity of marriage." Let me assure you, Mr. Dwyer, that with a 50% divorce rate, the "sanctity of marriage," as you put it, is far from an untouched treasure that we need to "defend," as our governor has put it.

The other item you are quoted as saying follows:

"This issue is not for the courts to decide."

I say, sir, that the issue of marriage, and who it can and can't include is not for you and state lawmakers to decide. Please stop wasting the salary I pay you dealing with such foolishness in order to "save us" from some imaginary evil and remember what being a Republican is about - freedom, not exclusion. I wouldn't mind a tax break while you are at it.

Heh, yeah. If everybody followed the logic of SB, black people would still be in bondage, you wouldn't be able to vote, and we'd both be in jail for our "choices." Sounds like a winning situation for all of us.

Thanks for the warm welcome back. I bet you al missed me terribly and even shed a tear while I was gone.

As for your contentions, that's some twisted logic you have yourself there my friend because race and ethnicity is not a moral issue. I think it's pretty well accepted that rascism in any form is an evil thing. Homosexuality on the other hand is a moral issue and so at the local and state level we have every right to define marriage as we see fit. We may even have that right on the national level which we will soon find out.

Okay, so who is going to be the first person to bring out a big stick?

EDIT: I guess I should add that I must have missed some interesting posts before the mods stepped in on the last few debates, so I have no idea why silberback66 got the ban-stick waved over his/her head. So my comment is just a joke really.. Not trying to start anything...

Homosexuality on the other hand is a moral issue and so at the local and state level we have every right to define marriage as we see fit.

Click to expand...

Not really, its a trait, much like hair colour, eye colour, how tall you are, etc. It only seems a moral issue because your religion tells you to and last time I checked we don't let the church make our laws.

Not really, its a trait, much like hair colour, eye colour, how tall you are, etc. It only seems a moral issue because your religion tells you to and last time I checked we don't let the church make our laws.

Its an equality issue, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

I have a question then. And I'm serious too, not trying to poke holes in anyone's thoughts.

Why do people switch to homosexuality, then switch back if it's a trait? It seems this would something one wouldn't be able to switch between at all in the first place.

I'll be happy to fill you in. I was telling a story of a couple women I know who were raped and decided to keep their babies and now are glad they made the descision they did because their babies have become such tremendous blessings in their lives. Someone called that anti-abortion propoganda, I got upset and called them an A##hole for talking down on people that I care about and I got banned for a week.

Not really, its a trait, much like hair colour, eye colour, how tall you are, etc. It only seems a moral issue because your religion tells you to and last time I checked we don't let the church make our laws.

Its an equality issue, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

And that's not a fact, that's an opinion. I guess the recent trend of middle school and high school kids claiming to be bisexual is just a genetic anomoly at work huh?

Why do people switch to homosexuality, then switch back if it's a trait? It seems this would something one wouldn't be able to switch between at all in the first place.

Click to expand...

Because in some people, their trait is that they're flexible. Some people are stuck one way or the other but some are inherently attracted to one, then the other and some are inherently attracted to both. Sexuality is certainly not something that's static but I would say it was certainly a trait not unlike any other.

silverback66 said:

And that's not a fact, that's an opinion.

Click to expand...

Its a fact that most people are pretty sure they know what gender they're attracted to. I'm assuming you're quite confident you know you're attracted to the opposite sex no?

Quote

I guess the recent trend of middle school and high school kids claiming to be bisexual is just a genetic anomoly at work huh?

Click to expand...

So I'm an anomaly eh?

I wouldn't call it a trend so much as I would say that (some of) society os more open to non-heterosexual ways of being and the people who would have already had those feelings are more free to act and explore them to find out where they really stand on things.

Homo/bisexuality is nothing new, its not a trend and its not going away. The only thing in flux is society's attitudes about it.

Because in some people, their trait is that they're flexible. Some people are stuck one way or the other but some are inherently attracted to one, then the other and some are inherently attracted to both. Sexuality is certainly not something that's static but I would say it was certainly a trait not unlike any other.

Its a fact that most people are pretty sure they know what gender they're attracted to. I'm assuming you're quite confident you know you're attracted to the opposite sex no?

So I'm an anomaly eh?

I wouldn't call it a trend so much as I would say that (some of) society os more open to non-heterosexual ways of being and the people who would have already had those feelings are more free to act and explore them to find out where they really stand on things.

Homo/bisexuality is nothing new, its not a trend and its not going away. The only thing in flux is society's attitudes about it.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a fact that I'm attracted to women, but that doesn't make it genetic.

And I don't know if you're an anomoly yet. I'll get back to you on that one lol.

As for your contentions, that's some twisted logic you have yourself there my friend because race and ethnicity is not a moral issue. I think it's pretty well accepted that rascism in any form is an evil thing. Homosexuality on the other hand is a moral issue and so at the local and state level we have every right to define marriage as we see fit. We may even have that right on the national level which we will soon find out.

Click to expand...

Yes, they were moral issues. The most significant argument expounded by opponents of interracial marriage claimed that it was unnatural and immoral.

My point is that you can't prove that it's genetic and there seems to be more evidence to the contrary so why keep hiding behind that excuse. If you're attracted to women aren't you woman enough to say that that's your choice?

Yes, they were moral issues. The most significant argument expounded by opponents of interracial marriage claimed that it was unnatural and immoral.

Click to expand...

Well obvioiusly those people who I imagine were from the church missed all of the examples of interracial and interethnic marriage in the Bible and were nothing more than common bigots. Don't hate on all for the mistakes a few man, it's just not groovy cat, you dig?

My point is that you can't prove that it's genetic and there seems to be more evidence to the contrary so why keep hiding behind that excuse.

Click to expand...

Then how would you explain the fact that in identical twins, if one identifies as gay, then in 52% of cases the other identifies gay as well? And this is in spite of whether or not they were reared together or separately.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.